I talked with my Rabbi. He said that the commandment to be fruitful and multiply extends everywhere. In other words, if there is no space for humans on Earth, then the commandment can be fulfilled in outer space.

_________________“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.” -Anonymous

What makes you so sure? How do you know what is good or bad? How do you know who is good or bad? How are you able to decide when a good person is doing something bad, or a bad person is doing something bad? Does a bad person ever do something good? How do you know?

I have no religion, but I do feel what's good and bad, I just have my own definition.

In a society there are rules we have to follow (rules chosen by the majority),Why do we have to follow them? If I can get away with murder, and I believe that what I'm doing is ok, does that make it OK? Why? to give everyone "limited" freedom. I believe that where my liberty ends, someone else's liberty begins. If I take too much, someone else loses his or hers. If I take away anyone else's liberty unjustified by the society, it's the society that should punish me. So I see good and bad as a balanced relationship between people.Why? Let alone.. if I hit someone and he or she is in terrible pain, it's not difficult to feel and see that it's wrong.What makes it so easy to see? Every person, including murderers, rationalize their deeds and believe that their actions are good. Hitler and Stalin, and their millions of followers, all believed that their actions were not "wrong".And about good and bad, it's all gray, no one is really fully bad or 100% good.That is the essence of moral relativism. There is no absolute good or bad - it's just "grey". Which leaves no reason why Hitler or Stalin are more or less good or bad than anyone else. After all, "no one is really fully bad".

_________________“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.” -Anonymous

Sigurd- I meant no insult to you. I never said that you are evil, rather that the ideas that you espouse, lead to evil. I have no idea whether you, yourself are evil - I don't know you. I am not judging you. I am judging your ideas on their own merit, irrelevent of who says it. In any case, if you don't believe in the existance of absolute evil, then why do you care if I call your ideas the source of evil? It's like saying to a Jew that his ideas lead to the belief that Jesus isn't god. Why should the Jew be offended? After all, for the Jew, Jesus doesn't exist . . .

_________________“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.” -Anonymous

Sigurd- I meant no insult to you. I never said that you are evil, rather that the ideas that you espouse, lead to evil. I have no idea whether you, yourself are evil - I don't know you. I am not judging you. I am judging your ideas on their own merit, irrelevent of who says it. In any case, if you don't believe in the existance of absolute evil, then why do you care if I call your ideas the source of evil? It's like saying that a Jew doesn't believe in Jesus. Why should the Jew be offended? After all, for the Jew, Jesus doesn't exist . . .

This is my last and final reply to this topic. After this I'll ignore all your comments.

I don't believe in perfection, someone who's pure evil or pure good is perfectly that. And as far as I know, perfection does not exist. So as I say gray, not all gray is the same. As with mathematics if we use the scale between 0 and 1 then there is a lot of space in between, even when 0 and 1 can never be reached. I'm certain both Hitler and Stalin actually did good things for some people, however to most people they did more bad than good, so the mass decided they are more evil than good.

Quote:

What makes it so easy to see? Every person, including murderers, rationalize their deeds and believe that their actions are good. Hitler and Stalin, and their millions of followers, all believed that their actions were not "wrong".

That's the same with almost all religions. People are people, if they believe or not. I live in a community where the majority does not believe. We have lower rates of rape, murders, etc than in many other regions and countries. It has nothing to do with believing or not.

Also as you base your rational thinking on your religion, it's not possible to continue discussing things outside that scope. So therefor my discussion ends here. So get back to the real topic, Religion in space, this is a space forum.

I don't base my rational thinking on "religion" - the opposite - I base my "religion" on rational thinking. I thought that I made that clear earlier in the thread. I my belief is based on an objective truth outside my "religion". Also, I don't think that the word "religion" really defines what I believe in. The Jews aren't a religion, they are a religio-nation. It basically boils down to that Judaism believes in combining the physical and the spiritual. It isn't either physical, or spiritual, it's the connection of one to the other.

_________________“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.” -Anonymous

Objectively - there is no basis for liberty with God. What reason do you have for liberty that is based on God?

Fixed your spelling mistakes.

"What reason do you have for liberty that is based on God?"Read the American Declaration of Independance.I also gave a more explicit answer before in the thread (just back a page or two)So now, answer my question: What basis is there for liberty without God?

_________________“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.” -Anonymous

Sigurd: "I don't believe in perfection, someone who's pure evil or pure good is perfectly that. And as far as I know, perfection does not exist. So as I say gray, not all gray is the same. As with mathematics if we use the scale between 0 and 1 then there is a lot of space in between, even when 0 and 1 can never be reached. I'm certain both Hitler and Stalin actually did good things for some people, however to most people they did more bad than good, so the mass decided they are more evil than good."In the middle ages, the mass of the world was anti semetic. The mass of the world is still anti semetic, if you judge by the U.N. Does that make the mass of the world correct?In mathematics, everyone agrees that 1 is 1, 2 is 2, etc. It is not decided by a mass or personal choice. It is decided by an objective reality, which everyone agrees upon. It is absolute. If the mass says that 1+1=3, you don't put the issue to a vote. The mass is wrong. By any standard. If we put mathematics to a vote, mathematics is no longer based on reality.If good and evil are relative to "what the mass of the world decides" then there is no objective good or evil at all. Which means that in a pre-monotheistic Greek world, it is fine to leave undesirable babies outside of town to die. It is also OK to persecute the Jews if the "mass" decides so. Why do you even use the words "good" and "evil"? They have no meaning if they are not absolute. Do you have a problem saying that you don't believe in morality?

_________________“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.” -Anonymous

So now, answer my question: What basis is there for liberty without God?

I honestly cannot see any liberty with a God which have the possibility of influencing "if he'd like to". Liberty in that sense is just like a child testing out how far his parents are willing to go before they put their foot down. "You can do whatever you'd like, as long as I don't disagree!"

Epicurus wrote:

It is not the man who denies the gods worshipped by the multitude, who is impious, but he who affirms of the gods what the multitude believes about them.

SA_Rocket_Guy wrote:

If there is no God, why do Atheists react so forcefully to something which they don't believe in?

Personally, I ignore things that don't exist.

Because ignoring it won't make it go away. We're used to that approach here in Norway with a socialist government the last 4 years, and will also have it the next 4. Ignoring it is what they do (or tax it) - neither makes any problems go away.

The Socialist government does in fact exist though, so you are conceding the point.

Morality based on a supreme being, is in fact a relativist morality. How does a supreme being decide what is right or wrong. If that being looks up a moral code or table, then an atheist can skip the being and look at the same code or table. If the being is using themselves as the standard, well that is the definition of relativism.

There are a lot of religious reasons not to explore space. For neutrality I will use environmentalism as the religion of example.

From KSR's Mars Trilogies' 'Reds' to the greens here on Earth, there are many who express the opinion that we shouldn't be despoiling space and other worlds, at least not until we have learnt to be self-sustaining on this planet.

On the other hand there are those who quip, "If God hadn't wanted us to travel in sapce, He would not have given us the Moon."

I'm going to try to start a new topic on this, because I believe the way Rob Goldsmith began his thread titled, "The Role of Religion in Space Travel", he did several somewhat disingenuous (if I may say so) things (note that I have no personal malice towards Rob, he seems like a great guy, and I might have felt the same way as him some years ago):

1) He asserts that, "Looking back at a lot of explorers there was a lot of emphasis put apon [sic.] their belief in god", without even mentioning that there was pressure on people in America to say they believed in God at the time the Space Agency started, that the US was in the trials of a heavy emphasis on religion for nationalist and ostensibly hawkish cold war socio-political reasons when NASA was started, and that not believing in God was a liability in having a career in government (the Department of War/Defense/Energy), or businesses that would do space and military contracting. The observation that many past astronauts and big name space agency people believed in God or professed this belief publicly and ardently has no scientific or rational bearing whatsoever on whether we ourselves should do the same -- unless it is truly a requirement for a space career -- in which case the answer is obvious: one will either say they believe in God and have a space career within NASA or Lockheed-Martin or what-have you, or have none at all.

2) Rob Goldsmith states he is "not at all religious" but then states, in direct reference to his not being religious that he has: "perhaps some kind of arrogant skepticism", and then in reference both about himself and a second person, Richard Dawkins: "i sometimes wonder if being scientific means we only see the evidence we want to see". Rob is here stating some possible doubts he has about himself personally -- the stability of the integrity of his own character when he talks about science or states his scientific beliefs. Then when confronted with an article criticizing Richard Dawkins tone of argument, sends the same doubts in that mans direction as well. This is more or less following the type of behavior of evangelical Ted Haggard as depicted here, at the moment in which he says to Dawkins after Dawkins talks to him about the Bible and scientific fact: "You'll find yourself wrong on some things, right on other things, but please in the process of it, don't be arrogant."

Can we draw the conclusion that if talking in a tone that is confident in yourself and erudite and filled with emphasis on factuality as scientists like Dawkins (and presumably Rob but somehow only when he talks of science) do, we are at the same time "arrogant"? Is concern that this may be true to religious people any scientific or rational argument as to why we should consider religion anything but make-believe? What if in our own opinion religious people themselves sound arrogant? Should they also doubt themselves on this basis? Does it all come down to "who is arrogant and who is not"? But what about the original question? This is not a sufficient argument to take religion (or any belief system) seriously, especially in the extremely science-dependent realm of space engineering and spaceflight. It's hedged with guilt or fear of offending others simply with our points of view. Of course it's important to be polite and respectful -- but this is not the same as fear of explaining why an idea is wrong.

3) Finally, Mr. Goldsmith omitted any sources of arguments or observations from scientists and atheists pointing out that religion was bunk. The only link in his message -- this coming from a self-identified scientific man -- was one in which Dawkins was under attack for "sounding dogmatic". (The same kind of non-arguments and ad hominem used against Michael Moore each time he releases a documentary film.) I would like to take this moment to offer some other links to videos presenting arguments by people who do not hold purely faith-based beliefs, but instead expect demonstrable evidence before they will believe in something. (See the links below.) How a person sounds, and whether they are in fact being dogmatic are two separate things entirely. We are not talking about "worrying about how people sound". We are talking about whether there is proof, evidence... to support a belief system. When people protested the Vietnam War, and the two Gulf Wars, whether they did it in a nice way (they were called wimps and bleeding hearts by the opposition) or a not-so-nice way (they were called dangerous radicals and terrorists by the opposition) has absolutely no real bearing on the soundness of arguments and real proof. Even accepting that humans can be convinced to behave a certain way without proof or with outright lies does not make the necessity of proof in order to determine what is real any less relevant. Human beings will either accept reality without blind faith, or they will not and suffer the real world consequences of this outcome.

(I should note that on the site that Rob pointed to, there's basically people saying he didn't offer evidence, and people saying he "sounds dogmatic" whether he offers evidence at all. First of all, people like Dawkins, or Michael Moore (who faces the same kind of attacks though he talks about totally different things) do not have the raw numbers of personnel, the time or the resources that religious fundamentalists (or whomever doesn't like Moore - I guess big business and the gun lobby) do to constantly explain themselves again and again. This is a fact. It is unfair to expect them to go over something again and again that they already explained carefully in a book or documentary. As for sounding dogmatic, I just covered that. Compared to people like Bill O'Reilly the guy is a pussycat. Saying Richard Dawkins is "arrogant" or "dogmatic" is the abandonment of reasoned argument and becomes completely reliant on subjective point of view.)

If there is no God, why do Atheists react so forcefully to something which they don't believe in?

Personally, I ignore things that don't exist.

"Reality is that which,when you stop believing in it,doesn't go away".Philip K. Dick

I also ignore things that don't exist.

However I find it very hard to ignore people who don't ignore things that don't exist. They tend to run into trouble sooner or later. The kind of trouble that will likely impact me.

Like our Friend Dan hassling folks in a thread in the Armadillo forum. I'm not about to sit there and let him go on insulting people and basically threatening them with damnation. He's plain bad. And he is very real.

As real as a suicide bomber, or Fred Phelps, or Phillip Garrido. These are horrendous people who must be stopped. That is tyranny and it will not stand.